Category talk:Governors-General
We ought to expand this description to explain what a G-G is for the benefit of American visitors. The problem is, I'm not too certain what a G-G is myself. I know they stand in for, and are subordinate to, the Monarch in the Commonwealth realms that are not the UK, but that's not relevant to everyone in this category. Turtle Fan 03:26, April 12, 2011 (UTC) :I think that's why I left it vague to begin with. In the UK, the G-G has historically been the functional equivalent of viceroy. If we do create a viceroy category, we could wholesale move nearly every British G-G into that category. :But, that doesn't work with everyone else. The Spanish, for example, used both titles, and the G-G was in theory a lesser position. For example, the Viceroy of New Spain appointed the G-G of the Philipines. But, reading over what the G-G did I don't see a huge difference between the functions of the offices. ::Strict adherence to political hierarchy does tend to break down a bit on the frontier. Given the rates of travel at the time it was pretty impractical for the Viceroy of New Spain to micromanage the Philippines, and even more so for the King to do so. I think the telling distinction in this case is that the Viceroy was directly below the King, while the Governor-General had another layer in there. Turtle Fan 16:57, April 12, 2011 (UTC) :Then of course, we have US colonial practices. From 1898-1901, the US governor was the "military governor". Then, from 1901-1905, it was the "civil governor". Then, by statute, the title became "governor general", which as the USA is a republic without a monarch, cannot be a position of "viceroyalty". ::No, you certainly wouldn't have a viceroy in a republic. G-G does seem to be a more versatile title in that sense. Turtle Fan 16:57, April 12, 2011 (UTC) :Gumming things up a bit, even the Brits called the representative of the Monarch in India the "Viceroy and Governor-General of India" for a time. ::From what I can tell, Governor-General was considered the "nicer" of the two: It was the title used in Canada, Australia, and other places where the Crown and Parliament took a very hands-off approach. Where the higher levels of government were handled remotely, Viceroy. When the Brits realized they'd have a helluva time putting down open rebellions in their colonies, and realized that the Indians knew this as well, they tried to defuse tensions by transferring more autonomy to local institutions, and changed the title to symbolize the transition. Turtle Fan 16:57, April 12, 2011 (UTC) :Perhaps instead of going purely by title, we should step back and look at the function? TR 15:49, April 12, 2011 (UTC) ::I think in most cases title will give us more clarity than function. Someone like Halifax, who was Viceroy and Governor-General, can always double count; it's not like we've never done that before. Turtle Fan 16:57, April 12, 2011 (UTC) ::Oh, and here's something else: All fifteen Commonwealth realms that have Governors-General (the UK itself, of course, does not) have Constitutional provisions saying that the G-G is nominated by the PM and confirmed by the Monarch. If the office is vacant, the Monarch can appoint a stand-in, but only on a temporary basis until the PM has chosen a permanent replacement. So, as with the Spanish governor of the Philippines, the G-G is not chosen by the Monarch directly. Turtle Fan 17:10, April 12, 2011 (UTC) "De Facto Heads of State" Wasn't there some huge kerfuffle a few years ago when Michaelle Jean referred to herself using words to that effect? Turtle Fan (talk) 23:34, December 31, 2014 (UTC) :I'll leave that part of it to ML4E. ::I have a vague recollection which suggests it wasn't so much of a much. ML4E (talk) 19:58, January 2, 2015 (UTC) :::"Huge kerfuffle" may have been an overstatement. I do remember that, right at the end of her tenure, she opened the Vancouver Olympics with the Queen's blessing. As she was coming out the TV commentators gave a quick summary of her constitutional role and I think it was at that point that one of them mentioned the faux pas. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:02, January 3, 2015 (UTC) :Saying de facto here is perhaps overstating things on my part. Maybe the trappings of the HoS would be accurate? An informal HoS? In the Commonwealth realms, the GGs have certain of the Queen's powers, as well as the same "weaknesses" as it were. TR (talk) 02:36, January 1, 2015 (UTC) ::I agree that de facto is too strong. Maybe " . . . often exercise all the functions of a head of state . . . "? We might also do well to eliminate that mini-paragraph altogether; even if we cleaned it up, I really don't see it being terribly useful. ::I was also going to say that using the Commonwealth Realms as the standard for all modern G's-G is dangerous, but a quick review of the Internet suggests that it might not be. I can't find a single non-Commonwealth Governor-General's office that is functioning today. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:51, January 1, 2015 (UTC)